get-info -class technology | write-output > /dev/web

So how, exactly, should a company license a hosted VDI solution with Windows?

Late last night, I got myself involved in a Twitter conversation with @stufox, who works for Microsoft in New Zealand. I’ve never met Stu – but I do follow him and generally find his tweets interesting; however, it seems that we don’t agree on Microsoft’s approach to licensing Windows for virtual desktop infrastructure.

Twitter’s 140 character messages don’t help much when you get into an argument, so I said I’d respond on this blog today. Let me make one thing clear – I’m not getting into a flame war with Stu, nor am I going to disclose anything from our conversation that isn’t already on our Twitter streams, I just want to explain, publicly, what one of my colleagues has been struggling with and for which, so far at least, Microsoft has been unable to provide a satisfactory solution. Hopefully Stu, someone else at Microsoft, or someone else in the virtualisation world will have an answer – and we can all be happy:

VECD is applied to a physical device used by a customer. It includes the operating system license for that device and allows them to use a virtualised desktop (e.g. in a VDI scenario). So, if you provide a hosted VDI service, how can you buy VECD for a device over which you have no control (remember, Windows client licenses are tied to hardware)?

Furthermore how do you transfer that license from customer to customer, e.g. if a customer leases a virtual desktop for a few months.

FPP is the most expensive way to license Microsoft products – that’s why most enterprises use volume licensing (although many do not have SA).

Stu’s final (for now) public comment on the subject was that “Blaming VECD licensing for ruining VDI is like saying ‘I’d buy the Ferrari if the engine wasn’t so expensive’“. Sure, VDI is not a cheap option (so a supercar like a Ferrari is probably the right analogy). It requires a significant infrastructure investment and there are technical challenges to overcome (e.g. for multimedia support). In many cases, VDI may be more elegant and more manageable but it presents a higher risk and greater cost than a well-managed traditional desktop solution (many desktop deployments fail in the well-managed part of that). So, the real issue with VDI is not Windows licensing – but Windows Licensing is, nevertheless, one of the “engine” components that needs to be fixed before this metaphorical Ferrari becomes affordable. Particularly when organisations are used to running a fleet of mid-priced diesel saloons.

VDI is not a “silver bullet”. I believe that VDI is, and will continue to be, a niche technology (albeit a significant niche – in the way that thin client/server-based computing has been for the last decade). What I mean by this is that there will be a significant number of customers that deploy VDI, but there will be many more for whom it is not appropriate, regardless of the cost. For many, the traditional “thick” client, even on thinner hardware, and maybe even running virtualised on the desktop, will continue to be the norm for some time to come. But if Microsoft were to sort out their licensing model, then VDI might become a little more attractive for some of us. Let’s give Microsoft the benefit of the doubt here – maybe they are not sabotaging desktop virtualisation – but how, exactly, is a company supposed to license a hosted VDI solution with Windows?

Licensing does tend to follow technology and we’ve seen instances in the past where Microsoft’s virtualisation licensing policies have changed as a result of new technology that they have introduced. Perhaps when Windows Server 2008 R2 hits the streets and Remote Desktop Services allows provides a Microsoft product to act as a VDI broker, we’ll see some more sensible licensing policies for VDI with Windows…

2 thoughts on “So how, exactly, should a company license a hosted VDI solution with Windows?”

Ha, my ears were burning. I think you’ve made fair comments Mark, and I know you’re not trying to start a flame war here (140 characters at least makes for a concise flame war if one did start). I guess my point is that the VECD licensing is what it is, there is very little I (or indeed you) can do about it at this point, so any VDI project simply has to take it into account when developing their business case. I don’t see too many people complaining about the cost of VMware View though, which strikes me as somewhat hypocritical – don’t just single out a particular vendor for cost (not aiming this at you, this is just an observation). If your business case falls over because of the VECD license then potential savings must have been small anyway – why not just do a well managed desktop (the TCO is about the same)?
I think you’ve missed one of the licensing options for VECD – there is VECD for SA, and VECD for thin clients (where you don’t have SA). But that doesn’t address the “desktop as a service” scenario that you discuss though. I’ll ask as many questions as I can internally and see what I can find out for you though.

@Stu – you’re absolutely right… many of the arguments about this on the ‘net appear one sided – VMware vs. Microsoft has become as evangelical as Mac vs. (Windows) PC or Nikon vs. Canon. It’s sad really.

My position is the same whatever the virtual infrastructure – it relates to VDI in general – and you’re right, if the business case falls over because of Windows Licensing then it was a bit dodgy anyway, but that’s why I think of it as a niche technology. It will work for some (maybe quite a few) organisations, but not for many others.

It’s natural to exploit any opportunity to save costs though: we negotiate hardware deals for storage, servers, etc.; people costs are always under pressure; software licensing is the next place to look.

Thanks for offering to see what you can turn up. Nothing has come out of Microsoft UK on this, maybe you’ll have better luck :-) And maybe there will be some changes once RDS is generally available!

By using this website you allow cookies to be placed on your computer. They are harmless and never personally identify you. For more information about cookies and how they are used, visit the
Privacy Policy and Data Protection Notice